Whyte & Mackay (“W&M”) entered into an agreement with Blythe & Blythe (“B&B”) for the provision of design services in respect of W&M’s new bottling facility at Grangemouth. A dispute arose over the design of the piling and foundations. W&M referred the dispute to adjudication and the adjudicator found in favour of W&M, requiring B&B to pay £2,987 million. W&M sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

In its defence to the action, B&B alleged that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice and had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision. B&B further challenged the merits of the claim referred to the adjudicator, by way of a counterclaim, and sought a declaration that the underlying claim was without merit.

W&M opposed those parts of the counterclaim that went to the underlying merits of the claim. W&M’s argument was that the issue of enforcement should not be “tied together” with any dispute over the merits of the claim. Those issues should be heard separately so as not to delay the enforcement process.

His Lordship held that both issues should be dealt with together. In making reference to the wide procedural powers afforded to a commercial judge, His Lordship considered that the allowance of the counterclaim would not adversely affect the efficient resolution of the main action. Accordingly, B&B were granted permission to lodge and serve its counterclaim.